Appeals court upholds demolish decision in Bonner case

The Michigan Court of Appeals has once again upheld a lower court's decision granting the city of Brighton's request to demolish two vacant homes owned by Marilyn and Leon Bonner.(Photo: GILLIS BENEDICT/DAILY PRESS & ARGUS)Buy Photo

The Michigan Court of Appeals has once again upheld a lower court's decision granting the city of Brighton's request to demolish two vacant homes owned by Marilyn and Leon Bonner.

The ruling, released Friday, means the city can order the demolition of a dilapidated building — in this case, the two Bonner houses on North Street.

A message left for the Bonners' attorney was not immediately returned Friday.

The Bonners argued the trial court erred in finding they had lost their prior nonconforming residential use status on the property through abandonment. The property has since been zoned commercial.

They also argued they were denied "due process" because they received inadequate notice that Brighton intended to discontinue their nonconforming use status.

The appeals court didn't agree with either argument.

<FZ,1,0,15>The appeals court ruled the conditions of the houses "strongly manifests an intent to abandon residential use of the property," and the court noted the houses are falling apart and are uninhabitable.

The Bonners argue that is due to the city cutting off water, but the appeals court said that argument "is simply preposterous" and the Bonners "provided no support for the extraordinary contention that a lack of running water somehow precludes a homeowner from engaging in repairs or maintenance."

According to the appeals court decision, the Bonners' houses were in violation of Brighton ordinances in 1979 — before the city cut off the water. The appeals court further noted that there is no evidence the Bonners made "any serious effort between 1979 and 2009 to restore the houses to habitable conditions."

"The evidence unambiguously shows that they were uninhabitable for many other reasons, none of which the Bonners appear to have shown any interest in correcting for in excess of 30 years," the appeals court wrote.

The Bonners also argued the trial court's order the houses should be demolished is "impermissibly excessive," but the appeals court disagreed, noting that the Michigan Supreme Court holds that demolition is permissible if the property owner fails to repair the buildings at issue to abate excessive fire risk.

"We agree that buildings may not be considered hazards or ordered razed solely because they are old and dilapidated," the appeals court ruled. "However, the houses here were more than merely old and dilapidated, and there is no general constitutional right to repair rather than raze a structure found to be unsafe. Furthermore ... the use of a structure or building in violation of a zoning ordinance is a nuisance per se and may be ordered by a court be abated."